Two recent legal battles illustrate the widening rift between religious freedom claims and the rights of transgender Americans. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing stronger legal protections for transgender people, warning of conflicts with doctrine and hiring practices. At the same time, Liberty University is appealing a case defending its decision to fire a transgender employee shortly after she disclosed her identity.
These cases are not isolated incidents. They represent a larger cultural and legal struggle over whether religious liberty can be used as justification for discriminatory practices. At stake is the balance between protecting religious institutions and upholding the civil rights of individuals, particularly transgender people who already face disproportionate levels of workplace discrimination, housing insecurity, and healthcare barriers.
This article explores the history of religious freedom arguments in the United States, how they have been used to both defend and deny civil rights, and why using religion as a shield for anti-transgender discrimination undermines the principles of equality and justice.
The Promise of Religious Freedom
Religious freedom is one of the foundational rights of the United States. The First Amendment guarantees individuals the right to believe, worship, and practice their faith without government interference. This principle protects diverse traditions, from Christianity to Islam to Judaism to Indigenous spiritual practices.
In its purest sense, religious liberty ensures that no one is forced to adopt the beliefs of another. It is about personal conscience, private devotion, and freedom from government coercion. However, the right to practice one’s religion has limits, especially when it conflicts with the rights of others.
When Religious Freedom Becomes a Weapon
Throughout history, religious liberty arguments have been invoked not only to protect faith but also to justify discrimination. In the 1960s, segregationist business owners claimed that serving Black customers violated their religious beliefs. Courts rejected these arguments, recognizing that public accommodations laws applied equally to everyone, regardless of an owner’s personal faith.
In more recent decades, similar arguments have resurfaced in debates over LGBTQ+ rights. Religious exemptions have been sought to deny services to same-sex couples, refuse contraception coverage for employees, and resist compliance with nondiscrimination protections.
Now, transgender people are increasingly the target. Employers, schools, and institutions have attempted to use “sincerely held religious beliefs” as grounds for refusing to recognize transgender identities, misgendering employees, denying bathroom access, or even firing staff.
The LDS Church Brief and Liberty University Case
The LDS Church’s brief to the Supreme Court frames transgender rights as a potential threat to religious institutions. By opposing heightened scrutiny for anti-transgender discrimination, the Church and allied groups argue that they must be free to maintain doctrinal consistency without interference.
Meanwhile, Liberty University has centered its defense on the claim that Title VII’s protections against sex discrimination should not override its religious convictions. The case involves Ellenor Zinski, a transgender woman who was terminated shortly after disclosing her identity. Liberty argues that its doctrinal statement gives it the right to dismiss employees whose lives do not align with its faith.
Both cases exemplify the way religious freedom is being positioned not as a shield to protect belief, but as a sword to deny transgender individuals equal treatment.
The Human Cost of Religious Exemptions
For transgender people, these legal disputes are not abstract debates. They directly affect their ability to work, live, and thrive.
- Employment: Transgender individuals already face high rates of unemployment and job discrimination. When religious institutions claim the right to fire employees for being transgender, it compounds economic insecurity.
- Healthcare: Some faith-based hospitals have denied gender-affirming care, citing religious objections. This leaves patients without access to medically necessary treatment.
- Education: Transgender students attending religious schools may be denied recognition of their identity, access to appropriate facilities, or even enrollment.
- Public Life: Religious exemption arguments often spill into public accommodations, where trans people are denied services or recognition based on faith claims.
These real-world consequences highlight that religious exemptions are not harmless. They are lived as daily acts of erasure and exclusion.
Legal Precedents and the Slippery Slope
The Supreme Court has issued several decisions in recent years that expand the reach of religious freedom claims. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Court allowed a closely held corporation to deny contraception coverage based on religious objections. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Court sided with a baker who refused to serve a same-sex couple, though the ruling was narrowly tailored.
These cases have emboldened institutions to push for broader exemptions. If religious freedom becomes a blanket defense against nondiscrimination laws, the implications extend far beyond LGBTQ+ rights. Employers could deny coverage for medical procedures, schools could exclude students, and basic civil rights protections could be hollowed out.
Faith Communities That Affirm Transgender People
It is important to recognize that religion is not monolithic. Many faith communities affirm transgender identities and advocate for equal rights. Progressive Christian congregations, Reform and Conservative Jewish communities, Muslim organizations, and interfaith coalitions have all taken public stances in support of transgender dignity.
These groups emphasize that religious freedom should protect the right to affirm and include, not the right to discriminate. Their voices complicate the narrative that faith and transgender equality are inherently at odds
The False Choice Between Faith and Rights
A central flaw in the religious exemption argument is the idea that institutions must choose between faith and compliance with civil rights laws. In practice, nondiscrimination protections do not dictate theology. They simply require that institutions treat employees and members of the public equally.
A religious school can teach its doctrine while still respecting the identities of transgender employees. A faith-based hospital can uphold its values while providing medically necessary care. Religious freedom does not require the right to deny dignity.
The Broader Social Impact
When religious freedom is weaponized against transgender people, it reinforces stigma and emboldens hostility. Transgender youth hear the message that their existence is incompatible with faith. Workers fear losing their jobs simply for living authentically. Communities fracture along lines of identity rather than being united in shared humanity.
The broader impact is a society where transgender individuals are treated as exceptions to equality. This undermines the very foundation of civil rights, which are meant to protect vulnerable groups from the tyranny of the majority or institutional power.
Why the Law Must Draw Clear Boundaries
Courts and legislatures must make clear that religious freedom is not an unlimited license to discriminate. This means:
- Affirming that civil rights protections apply equally to transgender individuals.
- Rejecting broad exemptions that allow institutions to fire, deny care, or exclude on the basis of gender identity.
- Recognizing that the right to practice faith ends where it harms the fundamental rights of others.
Religious freedom should be about conscience, not control. Protecting belief should never come at the expense of another person’s right to exist with dignity.
The Bottom Line
The LDS Church brief and Liberty University case reflect a crossroads in American law and culture. If religious freedom becomes a broad exemption to equality, transgender people will continue to face exclusion in workplaces, schools, and healthcare systems.
Yet there is another path. Courts, lawmakers, and communities can affirm that religious freedom is vital but not absolute. The right to believe must coexist with the right to live free from discrimination.
For transgender people, the issue is not a theoretical debate. It is the difference between safety and vulnerability, inclusion and isolation, and survival and despair.
Religious freedom is a cherished value. But it must never be used as a weapon to deny the humanity of others.
